[ALAC] When will ALAC make its conflict of interest statement?

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

@Beau  you raised the point ( also in a related email which I will also
respond to) "...  What I think ALAC should do now, personally, is push for
conflict of interest rules to be adopted at all levels, starting with the
ALAC itself...." As  also mentioned in the Skype Chat
=> "... ..Conflict of Interest ( CoI) policy for ALAC will indeed be
included in the ROP's and Metrics Review WG that put it's community wide
call for membership oiut through last week... So it is a matter very much
on OUR  Agenda and we will of course assume it can be a benchmark for wider
ICANN modelling or use... You will also note the considerable amount of
work that the ICANN Board  put into this matter leading up to and  during
the CR Meeting (and now out for Community Public Comment), so it is indeed
on many tables at the moment *as it indeed should be*
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 20 March 2012 07:14, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Hope everyone had good journeys back.
>
> I assume you all have seen this story in the New York Times?
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/technology/private-fight-at-internet-naming-firm-goes-public.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1332165645-IV28j+gNERC8I8kD5rURmA
>
> ALAC is frequently concerned with how it is perceived by others,
> especially when it comes to representing the user community.
>
> For the New York Times to have written a story like this, it must have
> deemed the story to be relevant to the general public.
>
> Yet ALAC, despite having ample opportunity and guidance during the week,
> failed to make a statement, even when it was already written for them,
> twice, by me. It distracted itself by claiming the story was no big news,
> or out of scope, or too confrontational for its multicultural nature, etc.
> etc. And it was distracted by the failure of LACRALO to conduct a
> meaningful general assembly. Rather than focus on policy issues, such as
> this one, it focused on elections of its own officers. Fortunately, I do
> believe Jean-Jacques Subrenat raised the conflict of interest issue in the
> public forum, but, as he eloquently pointed out to the list, he was
> something of a lone voice in doing so.
>
> Since the ALAC does not consider such issues as those that appear in the
> New York Times story to be of importanance, then I am forced to conclude
> that ALAC is not capable in its current construction to carry out its
> mission to speak for the Internet user. I have been asked by one of the
> publications I write for to put together a story about what's going on
> here, and I believe I have no other choice, in fact, am obligated as a
> journalist to cite ALAC's failure to raise this issue sooner (or at all).
>
> Beau Brendler
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>